SUBSCRIBE:

International body intends to restrict export of surveillance systems used to commit human rights abuses

Share

The proliferation of private companies across the world developing, selling and exporting surveillance systems used to violate human rights and facilitate internal repression has been largely due to the lack of any meaningful regulation.

The statement from the 41 countries finally recognises that surveillance systems "under certain conditions, may be detrimental to international and regional security and stability." Although this is a broad public statement, and we are still waiting on more details and specifications on what exact terms and definitions are used in the draft version, this is at last an international recognition that surveillance technology can have negative effects on society, and something should be done collectively. While tightening the export of these surveillance technologies will not stop regimes from committing human rights abuses and violating fundamental rights, it will make it more difficult for companies around the world to be able to sell mass and intrusive spying systems.

Concerns from government

The Financial Times on Thursday 5 December reported that Western governments were pushing for an international solution to the essentially unregulated surveillance systems and cyber security technologies, something which they feel may fit into the Wassenaar Arrangement. The report said that intelligence agencies were particularly concerned about deep packet inspection technologies, systems that allow for network management as well as spying and censorship, being used by other States to conduct espionage or thwart cyber attacks. This follows statements we've heard from the UK Government for several months, that it "agrees that further regulation is necessary."

The Wassenaar public statement also says that new export controls have been agreed in areas "including surveillance and law enforcement / intelligence gathering tools and Internet Protocol (IP) network surveillance systems or equipment".

The need for reform is urgent. Surveillance equipment sold by companies in many of the countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement have been used to monitor the communications of journalists, human rights defenders, and human rights activists in countries like Bahrain, Turkmenistan, Libya, Indonesia, and Malaysia. While this public statement is a welcome first step from a leading member of the international community, this should not lead to complacency from campaigners or from governments. What will really matter is the interpretation and implementation by participating states. As in most things, the proof will be in the pudding.

The difficulty, and promise

Discussing export controls in the area of technology is always an extremely difficult balance to strike. It is a rapidly changing and constantly evolving area, with some systems protecting the vital privacy of pro-democracy activists, human rights defenders and others across the world. Whenever governments make changes to these regulations, many within the global technology community watch with trepidation as they fear their ability to fight back against repressive regimes will be jeopardised and curtailed. Their concerns are real and justified, and should always be taken into account whenever changes are made to fast changing technology legislation.

However we have also established comprehensively through our investigations and our Surveillance Industry Index that hundreds of private companies are ruthlessly exploiting this sector, which currently has no effective system of establishing who is trading with some of the most repressive governments in the world. We cannot allow German FinFisher GmbH, French company Amesys, Italian Hacking Team, Israeli-American Verint or South African VASTech to operate with impunity, selling their technologies to a range of repressive regimes and dictatorships. A balance must be found.

There are many problems with the Wassnesaar Arrangement, one being that it is a 'closed shop' with no opportunity for non-governmental input or engagement of external experts. However, it is still one of many useful avenues with which to meet the problem head on. Change can come, but only with enough pressure from the public, civil society, and governments themselves when they realise action must be taken to ensure their own security and stability.

Let us be clear: export controls are not a silver bullet solution for the problem of surveillance systems. Subjecting surveillance systems to export controls is only the first step to implementing effective mechanism to control the trade. Implementation and ensuring that human rights concerns are given sufficient weighting in the license-granting process are much needed. And instituting a system for controlling the trade of these technologies does not in any way take any of the moral responsibility away from the companies that develop and sell these, nor does it allow for shareholders, boards and private investment firms to abdicate their responsibility and turn a blind eye to the fact their increasing profits are based on the suffering of those in oppressed regimes. However, it does crack open the door to further action, and that is an opportunity.

Hopefully, by openly and consensually agreeing that the lack of oversight on the export of these systems must change, governments are now finally putting the surveillance system sector firmly front and centre.

￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼It was found that there is a serious gap when it comes to addressing online harassment in individual cases and many women were not comfortable taking their complaints to the law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

Since 2012, the Russian authorities have intensified a crackdown on freedom of expression, selectively casting certain kinds of criticism of the government as threats to state security and public stability and introducing significant restrictions to online expression and invasive surveillance of online activity.

In this report we take a closer look on how a traditionally safe space for free speech and expression was transformed into a space of unregulated arbitrary legal practices. We also examine the effect that the ever-changing political objectives, affiliations and temporal objectives all have on the frequency and severity of online political censorship cases.

Internet users from across the globe have come together to create a crowdsourced vision for free expression online. Over 300,000 people from 155 countries worldwide helped shape our roadmap for a Digital Future that includes us all.

A recent HKJA survey indicates a slight rise in the Hong Kong Press Freedom Index after two consecutive years of decline. Journalists on the ground believe that the situation has worsened in 2016, compared to the year before. HKJA chairperson Sham Yee-lan explained that the slight increase in the Press Freedom Index was likely to be related to the emergence of online media, which has led to some diversity in the industry.

This report presents the findings of a three-month study focused on mapping, observing and analysing online harassment of journalists in Hungary. The study aimed to identify the types of harassment journalists are subject to, which journalists are typically harassed, who the harassers are, and how journalists cope with harassment.

The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) in 2016 maintained its control over all public affairs and punished those who challenged its monopoly on power. Authorities restricted basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, association, and assembly. All religious groups had to register with the government and operate under surveillance. Bloggers and activists faced daily police harassment and intimidation, and were subject to arbitrary house arrest, restricted movement, and physical assaults.

Internet freedom has declined for the sixth consecutive year, with more governments than ever before targeting social media and communication apps as a means of halting the rapid dissemination of information, particularly during anti-government protests.

This publication presents the findings of the media development assessment in Mongolia that began in 2012 to determine the state of the media in the country. The assessment was based on the UNESCO/IPDC Media Development Indicators (MDIs), an internationally recognized analytical tool used to provide detailed overviews of national media landscapes and related media development priorities.

The report features present FoE practices on internet in Nepal and analyses existing policy, laws and constitution affecting the practice of freedom of expression. It seeks to advance the debate on this topic, thereby augmenting digital rights to make democracy's pillars more sustainable and more functional.

IFEX publishes original and member-produced free expression news and reports. Some member content has been edited by IFEX. We invite you to contact [email protected] to request permission to reproduce or republish in whole or in part content from this site.